How to unmute people who really want to take part in public meetings
The recent increase in audience participation at local government meetings draws negative attention when irate people threaten school trustees, public health officials or anyone else perceived as treading on their freedom.
Yes, it sometimes gets ugly. But there is an upside: More people participating means more care what their leaders are actually doing.
Too many city councils and school boards over the years have made important policy decisions with very few, if any, regular people watching. Apathy saps enthusiasm and breeds ignorance.
So as long as things don’t turn abusive or violent, take heart when you see someone from the audience approach the speaker’s rostrum. They have something to say, they have a right to say it and it’s the governing body’s job to hear them out, within reason.
Opinion
Some agencies in the current COVID-19 omicron surge have reverted to holding meetings remotely, with viewers tuning in via Zoom or some other digital platform. It’s an understandable precaution meant to protect us. But it can put a damper on public participation.
Don’t misunderstand — remote viewing is positive because it allows more people to safely see what government is doing, and it must continue even when the pandemic is far behind us, should that ever happen. But broadcasting public meetings must not continue as the only option, because that doesn’t foster as much interaction with the audience.
This is being seen in a seemingly small but crucial element to all local government meetings: public comment, the open-mic period when people say what’s on their minds even if the topic isn’t on the agenda.
Local agencies have allowed public comment by having people call in on remote devices or telephone, which is good. They also allow people to send written comments to be included in the record.
But agencies rarely if ever read aloud for all to hear the written public comments they’ve received. Such comments are printed and given to decision makers, who supposedly read and consider them. But no one else knows the content.
That’s got to be frustrating to anyone submitting written public comments. If you care enough about something to sit down, organize your thoughts and compose a note or letter — an acceptable alternative to marching down to the meeting chamber — you deserve to be heard.
To be silenced just because your thoughts are written is no way to be treated in a democracy.
Fortunately, the fix is easy.
Un-muting public comment
At the very least, all local agencies should give the author of written comments the option of having them read aloud. Some already do this.
A better solution would be to reverse that: Just read written public comments in meetings unless the author chooses not to have them aired.
To curb abuse — and to prevent marathon meetings — agencies could adopt simple guidelines. For example, a 250-word limit.
Letters to the editor typically are capped at 200 words, a reasonable amount for anyone to make a point. Some local agencies use 250-word limits for public comment. It takes about 90 seconds to read aloud that amount — less than the three-minute limit provided by some panels to audience members speaking in person.
Agencies sometimes receive form letters from multiple senders, all saying essentially or exactly the same thing but signed by different people. Fine; read one, then list those who sent other copies of the same letter.
Worried about legal exposure, if something in written comments is libelous or defamatory? Have your city attorney scan letters before they’re read in the meeting.
Reading aloud written public comments is a simple, painless way to encourage the public participation demanded in a democracy. All local agencies — from irrigation districts to county boards of supervisors — can foster enthusiasm for government by making participation easier for those who want or need to protect themselves by viewing from afar.
